There's a good discussion going on over at Internet Monk around the question "How much can the Bible do alone?" Michael Spencer observes the emphasis that evangelicals put on mass Bible distribution and suggests that this is a focus that sets them apart from other branches of Christianity.
I think most of us would agree that the Bible is sufficient unto itself to change the life of someone who reads it, even without any outside instruction or guidance. And I think most of us would also agree that the input of fellow believers and teachers enhances our understanding of Scripture and can make it easier to grasp.
It's Friday, and I don't have a big point to make with this, but I'm curious about your experiences. A few questions to think about:
- Do you know anybody who came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ by only reading the Bible, without a church, evangelist, or any sort of study guide to help them? (Did you come to Christ in this way?)
- When you suggest that somebody read the Bible, what guidance (if any) do you give them about how and what parts they should read?
- What's the best "guide" to reading the Bible that you've come across?





Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (19)
1. I have a friend, a former Mormon, who was challenged to read the Bible alongside her Book of Mormon. She said that the more she read, the more she saw the discrepancies of the two books, and realized she had not placed her faith in Christ at all with Mormonism. She came to our church after realizing she had become a believer in the Lord.
2. My only advice to people reading the Scripture for the first time (not original, from H.A. Ironside's mom, relayed in one of his books, still the best advice I have seen): Start at John Chapter 3, or Romans Chapter 3.
3. Anything written by Warren W. Wiersbe
During this time, even before I got to the NT, I was convicted of my sin and my need of a savior. Jesus was revealed to me as that savior. I can't say that I had no knowledge of Christianity before this by any stretch, but I did not know God.
I usually suggest the book of John when someone asks where to start. If they attend a church after that, I ask the pastor of that church to suggest further reading for them.
The best guide I can suggest is the one I used, a chronological Bible, though this format is not without it's shortcomings. It may presuppose certain orders of events (eschatology) in the order the events are given, and it may cause for overlapping accounts, but plans that have you read from the OT/NT/Psalms each day could cause many readers to become confused with the multiple timelines.
How differently did believers approach Scripture before Gutenberg, before the mass production of the written word? Obviously God values the written word, He created it (right, at least in some form or fashion?). But he also created a myriad of other methods of communication including oral and visual such as painting and sculpture.
Are we more literal or legalistic cultures since the invention of the printing press? Most of us will think this is a good thing, to have Scripture so widely available, but I'm very curious to know if there are people who can think of reasons why it's a danger as well . . .
Interesting that "spirit" and "breath" are the same word in Greek and Hebrew and speaking orally is "breathing ideas".
2. The Gospels, John being the personal fave.
3. The guide is less important than the commitment, as the spiritual diet resembles the physical.
Overall, the commitment to the Bible itself is one thing, but the implicit de-emphasis on the ~2,000 years of occasionally dodgy "Tradition" since the closing of the canon is also an important point.
I am in at least one conversation a month with people who were brought up with the view that the Bible is sufficient, that now question their faith when they find out that:
1. we don't have any original copies and that there are some things that seem to contradict each other
2. the Bible seems to contradict facts in science
3. there are some things which could most likely be transcription errors
I'm not saying that the Bible isn't true in it's claim to teach and rebuke, but I don't think the Bible, separate from a relationship with God and his people, is enough, or at least healthy. In fact, I would say that many churches abuse the Bible (and their relationship with God) in many ways that they teach it to people.
So I would say that the Bible alone is a pretty poor expectation of faith.
I might echo your thoughts along the lines of: Idolatry is possible anywhere, including concerning the Word of God itself. There is even a fellow who has claimed that the KJV represents God's final edit, and all else should be synchronized to that. Ahem, not amen!
I had all 3 of your "reasons the Bible is not sufficient" thrown my way, even by a college Philosophy of Religion professor who was also an ordained minister (his philosophy: the Bible was pretty much a myth). Each time one of these reasons came my way, it compelled me to deeper study of the Word and because of this, my faith was strengthened. Either the Bible is truth and is a solid rock to base our Christian faith upon, or it is a sandy foundation for our faith. I have discovered that Paul the Apostle spoke truly when he said, "Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God."
Lots of churches may abuse the Bible, but so do individual believers. Since relationship with God comes through faith in the living Christ as revealed in the Word of God, then I would say the Bible is absolutely pre-eminent in all things pertaining to the Christian faith. Even if one sees the witness of a Christian or a church and because of this witness wants that kind of faith, well, both that believer and that church came about because of the Bible's teachings, not the other way around.
2. Start with some other (apologetic) book ;-) But seriously, if we're talking Bible I'd rather read John or Romans _with_ them because folk just get confused and repelled without guidance.
3. Dan Patrick's "The Second Most Important Book You'll Ever Read" taught me to start somewhere other than Genesis.
I take a somewhat unorthodox view of the Bible ("reliable, special" as opposed to "inerrant, holy") and think many have mistaken the sign for the destination ala John 5:39:
I imagine Jesus inserting at the semi-colon:
I've heard stories of people converted only by reading the Bible, but, as with all stories, it's difficult to attest to their authenticity. I'm guessing the place to look is in places like China - maybe a read of Brother Andrew would bring up some cases?
I, and I'm guessing most evangelicals, would recommend people start with reading the gospels. Mark if they want a quick read. Luke is my personal preference, and follows nicely into Acts. From there, I would recommend continuing through the NT before tackling the OT.
I'm sure there are plenty of good guides and commentaries out there for Bible reading. One of my favourite overview books is called "The Bible From Scratch" by Simon Jenkins - it's a brilliant little book with loads of useful information presented in an informal style with cartoons and the like. It has information on every book of the Bible, and extra detail for the main characters and themes. I've had my copy for >15 years and they're still selling it, so it can't be bad ;)